[acawiki-general] Fwd: comments on BibTeX import, from Jim Pitman

Jodi Schneider jodi at acawiki.org
Sat Oct 24 07:43:31 EDT 2009


Hi AcaWiki general list!

Jim Pitman gave permission to share these comments.

What's essential to change for our BibTeX import now? In particular--do you
think the AcaWiki summary should be pulling from the note field (leaving the
abstract field for the official summary)?

Let us know what you think!

-Jodi

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> Hi Neeru,
>
> I uploaded a couple of summaries to acawiki and mostly it worked fine.
> Note these are almost verbatim copies of summaries of my own work, but I
> hold the copyright for electronic distribution (even for the Springer
> volume!).
>
> There are a number of bugs/issues with the bibtex upload, then some
> comments/questions.
>
> 1) bibtex allows names to be represented as Last, First
> You have to parse this, else it becomes two names.
>
> 2) The bibtex "note" field was interpreted as the summary. This seems a bad
> idea.
> It is commonplace to use the "abstract" field for a summary. I expected
> this to be
> pulled in ut it did not happen.
> In any case, none of this is standard bibtex, and it needs to be
> documented.
>
> 3) You explicitly invite contributions about books, and I provided one, but
> the metadata
> format is unitype for a journal article. This means some shoe-horning in
> the metadata which
> lowers its quality.
>
> 4) There is only room for one url in "Online Version". It is common that
> there is more than one,
> e.g.
> author's homepage
> digital repository
> publisher website
>
>
> As a general comment. You will do well if you oblige users to provide clean
> metadata. The big
> reviewing service in Mathematics, Math Reviews, which became MathSciNet,
> originally regarded its
> prime content as reviews. Over time it became clear that the main value was
> from high quality metadata
> acquisition and search over that. Reviews/Summaries are great, but
> primarily their value is for searching
> not reading.
>
> Now here is a radical idea.
> Say I have an article where the abstract is copyright by a publisher.
> So fine, I have a copy of the abstract, and I upload the words of the
> abstract to Acawiki in random order.
> It is not human readable, but it is great for search engines, and it is
> arguably fair use!
> Now if someone wants to take these words and rearrange them in to something
> useful, or add their own, more power to them.
>
> A question is what if anything you would do to stop a user doing that, not
> just for their own article, but for someone else's.
> For that matter, what are you doing to prevent copyright violations. If
> someone posts an abstract verbatim, that is not their
> copyright, are you legally protected?
>
> enough for one email!
> --Jim
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/acawiki-general/attachments/20091024/90ffc4f5/attachment.html 


More information about the acawiki-general mailing list